but we are also using the same sort of pragmatic faith to assume that our social world, our friends and acquaintances, will behavior in ways that are recognizably predictable and intelligible to us. This is a shakier proposition, which is why on a day to day basis we experience stress , anxiety and disappointment as our faith in others is confounded. — Joshs

Yeah, I agree and understand. We can recognize patterns or common behaviors in our friends or social circle, but these are hardly immutable. I think of myself as multipartite and certainly changeable depending on age or influences so I always assume a bit of uncertainty even when talking with old friends and certainly acquaintances. I just try to remember that just because someone acts e.g. negatively it's not necessarily, and often isn't, a reflection of me. People are weird. There's actually a philosophy of friendship and I remember reading in undergrad an exegesis of Aristotle's idea of friends as "second selves."

if we're talking about events in history all we have our records of witnesses. no one is still alive. we also have archaeology.

if we can observe it and there are plenty of witnesses then we could still doubt, but we'd be into some kind of cartesian doubt where we doubt our senses or our own perceptions. faith plays a role in either.

Maybe they are wrong though…what is the value of faith? — DingoJones

utility is the value. it's necessary unless you want to remain a very serious skeptic your entire life. you will have to make jumps if you want to believe e.g. that certain historical events happened or that the news you read is accurate.

thank you for the productive discussion.

There is such a thing as faith in epistemology, a faith that the new atheists don’t recognize in themselves. — Joshs

I see faith as a necessary part of epistemology. lets say we're trying to determine if a historical event happened in antiquity so we have no personal witnesses but we have the bible and a few tablets from ancient rulers indicating a conflict. is that enough to believe? when do you make that jump into belief that the event happened? when is enough?

You are not talking about God and talking about God. Got it. — Jackson

We can talk about faith in God, or we can talk about faith in other matters such as biblical historical that does not involved God, e.g. the Babylonian exile or the Assyrian take over of Israel in antiquity. Neither of these events need God to explain them, but since they happened so long ago are we only to trust the bible? how much evidence is enough?

I'm not explicitly talking about God. The new atheists may or may not be talking about God when they denigrate the role of faith. The topic of faith is a matter of epistemology; it doesn't necessarily relate to God.

Example: Trusting the bible (or any ancient text) on matters not involving God.

You'll see rhetoric which discounts the role of faith all the time. I could dig up quotes from the new atheist movement of the 2010s or with many atheists today. There are tons of quotes which discount the role of faith. I just don't see where we're going with this. It's an epistemological matter. I'm sure I could dig up some quote from Dawkins or Penn Jillette or Ricky Gervais... it's a constant theme.

The point is that worldviews which seek to completely discount the role of faith and instead advocate for a dogmatic narrow-minded commitment to empiricism or using one's own reason to follow up on everything are bullshit.

Jackson, I never mentioned God. I'm just saying that it's insane to imagine oneself as a purely rational being who must verify everything.... I'm saying faith is a necessary part of life just in the sense of action. No mention of God here.

I think in order to be a person in this world and actually act and do things as opposed to spending all your time "following up" or asking for evidence about everything you just kinda have to take a lot on faith.... like if I asked you what material your shirt is you'd presumably trust the tag right? But then you're taking that on faith/trust. You don't know.

I would never eat that garbage. — Jackson

:rofl:

No it's just reasonable. Unless you want to spend all your time double checking what materials are in your clothes or what exactly is going into your body. Do you double check all your nutrition labels? It's just faith. Our mental resources are limited. It would be insane to check everything.

That's great, but the Trump thing is only one topic. We ingest food daily that apparently contains certain ingredients or substances that we just have to trust. Or are you going to double check how many calories are in your honey nut cheerios?

I'm not attacking you, it's just part of being human. We just don't have the time or energy to check everything.

You can't check everything. Are you sure the ingredients in dietary supplements are correct? Or do you just look at the labels and trust them? Do you understand cars completely or do you trust a mechanic?

You check everything? Do you have a full understanding of the big bang theory? Every news article you read? Are you sure the sources aren't lying? Maybe the pictures are fake.

Faith is a part of everyday life outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's unavoidable. Faith is basically belief without "adequate" evidence or proof, and it's a necessary component of basic, everyday life. We simply don't have the time or energy to follow up on all the information that we take in over the course of a day or a week. I might read a news article on Reuters or MSN and I'll likely (but not certainly) believe it, but it would be virtually impossible for me to fact check everything. I take it on faith.

There are so many fields that the typical person just doesn't know and we often just have to default to the experts.

Hell is one of those ideas where the NT and OT seemingly contradict quite blatantly, but then again I haven't read the NT in its entirety. Personally, I don't see how the idea of everlasting torment is at all compatible with a merciful God, so I side with the OT on this one. I believe the traditional Jewish view is that hell/Gehinnom is a place where the soul is cleansed of its sins so that it can stand in the presence of God once that process is done. I've noticed a pattern where the NT takes concepts from the OT and magnifies them by x100.

I cannot find any scriptural basis for an eternal hell in the OT.

Perhaps Judaism (I'm exploring this question now) but it's interesting how you mention Hillel who's a famous Jewish thinker but not Judaism/the OT itself. Modern Judaism awaits the messiah. I've never heard Hillel described as a Christian apologist but my knowledge of the man is limited.

I think other books outside the ones you mention could potentially pull towards Christianity. Book of Daniel for instance references a "son of man" but the translation is of course contentious. Christians sometimes cite Jeremiah as referencing the coming of Christ. I believe Jeremiah 31:31.

Interesting how Sirach didn't make the cut for the Jewish canon. I haven't read it but I'd be interested to see how it compares to Proverbs.

But, in any case, notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans. And that's where I think morality enters the picture - because we can envisage how things might be, or ought to be, or ought not to be. — Wayfarer

Descriptively, yes. Seems reasonable to say that morality arises out of judgment.

And equal rights relies on recognising that all humans are persons, regardless of disability or ethnicity or what have you, which is the ground of the idea of rights. So I think that's the philosophical issue behind it. — Wayfarer

What would you say is the most convincing case for rights? As far as I can tell whether one looks supernaturally or naturally the case is not easy. The ancient Greeks considered those with disabilities - especially speech disabilities - as either cursed by the Gods or at best deficient. There is vast variation among homo sapiens. IMHO the Bible is leagues better on disability, but rights don't seem to extend to idol-worshippers or those who practice religion differently. Rights seem to be conditional on following God. I suppose that could serve as the seed of the idea.

EDIT: Thank you for your response on Martin Luther in our last discussion. I didn't have any immediate feedback/disagreement but it was an insightful read.

the idea that education should serve to teach people specific skills to be productive in society and conform, and the idea that education should encourage people to come up with new ideas and think independently. — Paulm12

Too sharp of a dichotomy here. Education can and should teach people how to be productive (i.e. earn a living) while simultaneously keeping their creativity. That's why schools should teach coding. It's both creative and a useful skill.

If educators going to teach philosophy and humanities all day those students better have a trust fund.

Education ought to prepare students for the outside world otherwise they do them a disservice. That skill today is tech. Teach them tech and finance. Include a bit of civics.

Good point! I've asked this question before, I'll ask it again:

Do things have value because they make us happy or do things make us happy because they have value? — Agent Smith

IMO before we answer this we need to really understand this concept of happiness.

Happiness for me can cover anything from the joy of going fast in a car or bike to the euphoria or getting drunk or high to sex, but then again you can also hear it referred to as contentment or more longer-term happiness such as an old man who's lived a long, happy peaceful life with many grandchildren who meditates to keep calm.

I don't expect you to answer this one; this concept has been baffled philosophers for thousands of years.

There's no doubt that we can subjectively assign value to things which make us happy, but we can also then ask whether those things are good. I might enjoy going 100mph on the freeway but whether this is good is another question.

OU are here so that you can bring ANOTHER PERSON into the worlds so that THEY can produce X outcome that YOU want to see out of them. — schopenhauer1

You don't get it. It isn't about me. It's about making things better and life is good. Morality can conflict with one's personal wishes so this isn't about what I want. It's just about the good.

Schop, I don't want to get too bogged down in details but the main difference in our views seems to be that my metaphysic is theistic while yours is atheistic. You're doing your best to build something within that framework and that's fine. I have a few comments:

-You seemingly define "doing good" as preference fulfillment while I view this as shallow. I think there's a deeper level to a person beyond one's preferences. I don't feel obliged to help the alcoholic acquire drinks or the disabled facilitate their own internalized ableism.

-I like how you bring up dignity but we define it in differently. I define it the way the dictionary does:

the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed

What grounds dignity? IMHO not anything in nature, not anything in the material world. You ever see a man in a wheelchair with spit dripping out of his mouth as he takes 30 seconds on his name? We could go on. Nature doesn't ground dignity. Neither does reason. That needs to be transcendental. Do pigs have dignity? Then why do humans if humans are just animals? Exodus 4:10 provides a grounding of dignity.

EDIT: I can't tell how you ground morality: Human reason? Nature? From where does it find its source. You say that people need to be valued in and of themselves but I don't know from where you reach this conclusion.

None of this is moral to create for someone else. — schopenhauer1

"Moral" in your opinion, which is seemingly based on an extreme sensitivity to suffering and perhaps consent.... no offense but you're on your own planet here. I don't know where your principles are derived from. What if I just don't care that life guarantees suffering? What if I don't view all suffering as bad? What if I don't care/view as morally relevant that being born isn't a choice? Suffering can be a great teacher. One often learns through pain. Suffering allows one to empathize.

But is life really about hedonism/maximizing one's pleasure? That seems like an insane way to live. "A life worth living" is a very difficult concept. I was very suicidal when my net worth was at its peak.



I don't understand why death ought to be treated as a great evil. Like @Jackson mentioned it's part of the natural life cycle. Is it really a great evil when a man dies peacefully on his death bed at age 99?

Reason does not tell us that death is a harm. It might be a wonderful experience or we might just go into oblivion in which case it is not a good nor a harm. The idea that reason alone tells us that death is a "harm" is yet another example of philosopher's over-extending their conception of reason into areas that it has no business being. Death is the great unknown. Reason alone tells us nothing of its nature. OP perhaps confuses "reason" with "instinct." Many of us have an instinct to stay alive, but reason is something different.

"Major General Roman Kutuzov has been officially denazified and demilitarized," the statement said. — Olivier5

:rofl:

I love the language of war. The Ukrainians are catching on. I think the Russians are the best but the Ukrainians are learning.

1. "Murder" is a very serious crime that needs to be established by the courts, not by social media activists. — Apollodorus

Yes, and only a Russian court. I bet the civilians in Bucha quite possibly resisted to some degree against their liberators and, well, what do you expect a group of soldiers to do? This is a war against fascism. How dare the West profane the reputation of such a professional and well-trained military without due process. We can't just assume guilt here. Maybe the civilians tied up, bound, and killed themselves. I wish stupid westerners would stop jumping to conclusions.

imo hazing reinforces the notion that rules don't matter and that might makes right; if you're in a position of power and you want to mess with your subordinates then go for it, there will be no punishment as the war institution condones it. it also reinforces the notion that one's superiors are in no way people to be relied on.



i get what you're saying just keep in mind that under dictatorships the prudent need to stay quiet for their own safety.

Agree. I don't think a lot of people realize how rotten the Russian military is as an institution. There's been frequent reports of serious hazing problems with junior enlisted, and that kind of thing gives rise to a culture of rule-breaking and nihilism where regulations no longer matter. Everyone wants to be an officer in Russia so the enlisted, the ones who frequently carry out mission execution, get neglected. One of the nice things about the US military is how they pay special attention to their enlisted. I just don't get the sense that the Russian enlisted trust their officer corp to have their best interest in mind.

I'm not going to comment on the geopolitical situation, but it should be well-established by now that the professionalism of the Russian military is eroding. The conduct of their ground forces has been abysmal between murders and rapes, and this will likely have the unfortunate consequence of sparking anti-Russian prejudice. The real problem isn't with the Russian people, but with Russian institutions, namely the military culture. When institutions erode and a kleptocracy uses its youth as cannon fodder it's no wonder we see this type of behavior. Unfortunately many people won't see this and I suspect we'll see a bump in anti-Russian prejudice as war crimes continue.

Institutions mold people. I write as a veteran.

Of course, the Jews are here in a special position, because they don't have a comparable notion of heaven and hell as other mainstream Abrahamists do. — baker

yeah, there is very little eschatology in the old testament and I'm sorry if you were taught that everything is about getting into heaven/avoid hell. I'd be dismayed with religion if I were taught that way. The OT is a guide to life, not death.

Rather, there is a specific culture of how we approach Viking stories: that the important points are the moral insights, or the tales of bravery, loyalty, and such. — baker

Yep, and we see this around the time of king david -- warriors with great but questionable feats. It's mainly about the values and morals displayed (there is some tremendous moral insight here, especially for antiquity - namely, kings are held to be very accountable for even small sins). However if you go further into the future and keep reading (david is around 1000 bc and the OT ends around 500 bc) the details become much more mundane and even quite tedious at times. The ot details actual historical events and often provides plausible accounts of them; nothing divine. Divine intervention is not pervasive. The Israelites often lose in these fights (and we want to see them lose because they have strayed.)

I'm not too familiar with viking stories so you might need to enlighten me a little there. The central message of the OT though is basically "be good, don't be bad." The extravagant descriptions of hell come later.

if zionism is racism then so is the arab/muslim claim to the land. it's all racism. that group becomes dominant and the other minority group whether arab or jew becomes subordinate.

This has also been studied. The evidence is clear: it's guns. This is why the US is an outlier compared to other developed countries. Your gut feelings about "suspecting" a mental health crisis notwithstanding. — Xtrix

The percentage of households in the United States owning one or more firearms from 1972 to 2021 has stayed essentially the same (43% vs 42%). America has long been a country of guns. It has not long been a country of school shootings.

We ought to focus on gun ownership if we're talking about america as being a county of guns. Not how many are manufactured. That's not necessarily the same as getting into the hands of the public. Increased gun sales tend to follow mass shootings.

There's always been a high supply of guns in the US, gun ownership levels are consistent since at least the 1970s; the number of school shootings has increased drastically since the 2010s. Numbers have been very high in recent years. Peak levels. I suspect a mental health crises.

https://www.statista.com/chart/19982/number-of-us-k-12-school-shootings-per-decade/

for real though, background checks are kind of bullshit....said as someone who has gone through multiple of them.

"are u an unlawful user of marijuana?" "are you a terrorist?" "have you ever committed espionage against the us gov't?"

i guess it stops felons which is good? presumably the background check screens a criminal database but i think thats the extent of it if it does that. presumably if u self report being committed to a mental institution they'll tell you no. the background check is basically just there for you to send the message that you're a good, proper, patriotic american and that if you go shoot up a school the responsibility is on you and not the shop bc u passed the background check.

i guess the most important thing is that they're able to link a gun to a name.

No it isn’t. — Xtrix

it is. klebold and harris got their weapons from friends/acquaintances as other mass shooters have. the government is simply not able to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. we can ban felons from holding guns and try to screen them out, but again if a determined felon wants a gun he's likely going to get one if he has friends. you just think the government/law enforcement has a much wider reach/capabilities than it actually does. there are more guns than people in this country and any attempt to confiscate would be met with serious backlash as it should.

have you looked into why the texas shooter did what he did? it didn't have much to do with gun culture. he was from a broken home, no upward mobility, worked at wendy's full time, no hope, bullied relentlessly over a speech impediment, wasn't graduating hs, got called a faggot by his peers for wearing eyeliner. other shooters draw on racist manifestos. blaming it all on gun culture is not accurate.

iirc he was challenging ppl to boxing matches out in the park before doing the shooting someone should have flagged him as dangerous. stop the problem before it gets to that point. we need strong communities that can catch things like this. he showed many red flags.

one point that hasn't been mentioned here is that guns are basically the easiest way for one to kill themselves, so taking away peoples' guns removes the possibility of a quick, easy suicide. don't you dare take that from gun owners.

Because you're afraid to give up the Call of Duty simulator in your head. — Streetlight

not cod, gta.

Can you explain how making it easy for people in violent neighbourhoods to get guns makes them less violent? It seems you are making the argument for gun control here. — Baden

ppl in violent neighborhoods go through the same background checks as everyone else. the texas shooter surely had a background check. people can also lie on background checks and maybe they can get away with some lies like on mental health because mental health is usually confidential.

sure we can use more gun control, sure we can raise the age to 21... but will this stop a determined mass shooter? i'm a skeptic on this one. guns are readily available, especially in texas. parents buy them for kids. average gun owner owns 3. iirc about a quarter of guns acquired are not purchased thru a licensed dealer.

we all want these shootings to stop but the enforcement aspect is very very difficult.

you know you're just stupid. like very stupid.

massachusetts is not indiana which is not texas.

learn the fucking difference you dumb foreigner. crime rates, cultures, and poverty levels differ drastically as do gun laws.